Intertrochanteric Osteotomy for Posttraumatic Arthritis After Acetabular Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term results of intertrochanteric osteotomies for posttraumatic arthritis after acetabular fractures. DESIGN: Retrospective study of eight patients who underwent a total of ten intertrochanteric osteotomies. Two patients underwent two osteotomies of the same hip. SETTING: Academic Level I trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who developed posttraumatic hip arthritis after nonoperatively or operatively treated acetabulum fractures. The average age of patients was twenty-nine years (range 16 to 47 years). INTERVENTION: Patients underwent an intertrochanteric osteotomy to decrease contact pressures on damaged cartilage and to lessen contractures. All intertrochanteric osteotomies at our institution were performed by the senior author (R.K.M.). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The Merle d'Aubigné score and the Thompson and Epstein score were determined based on each patient's last follow-up. RESULTS: At an average long-term follow-up of 10.2 years (range 2.5 to 22 years), all eight patients had a significant improvement based on the Merle d'Aubigné score (average increase 5.3 points). Less improvement was observed according to the Thompson and Epstein score, which is consistent with the fact that radiographic appearance is weighted disproportionally in that score. CONCLUSIONS: Because most acetabular fracture patients are relatively young, the option of joint replacement for posttraumatic hip arthritis is less than ideal. However, we have observed significant improvement in hip function with a decrease in pain and disability when such patients are treated with an intertochanteric osteotomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".